Billy Goldfeder
Member
Saw this in this months "FireRescue" Magazine as well as online here: Nozzlehead | Firefighter Nation
Apparatus Debate: Too Many Warning Lights?
Do we look unprofessional when we have so many warning lights on our apparatus?
Published Thursday, March 1, 2012 | From the March 2012 [3] Issue of FireRescue
Dear Nozzlehead: I’m writing to you because I feel that we have way too many warning lights on our apparatus. I appreciate the need for lighting, but haven’t some departments gone overboard with multiple light bars, side light bars, two to three sirens and a host of other lights (LED, strobe, oscillating, arrow and spinning)? I think that when we come down the road with so many lights, we don’t appear to be a professional department. The majority of our department wants to mount as many lights as possible in as many locations as possible, which, to me, is insane. What are your thoughts? Are there any scientific studies on this topic? Are there any laws against having so many lights? What do the standards say?
—Shining in the South
Dear Sunshine,
Let me be very clear from the beginning: I LIKE LOTS OF LIGHTS AND NOISE WHEN RESPONDING. There, I said it. I came out of the dark closet. Are you happy now? Of course you aren’t; you don’t agree with me. But I happen to be of the opinion that it makes the most sense to do whatever it takes to make people see us and hear us to avoid a crash and allow us to get to the scene as quickly as possible. Why? Because I said so—that’s why. Scientific studies? Why in the hell would we use science to determine what we already know?
You think too many warning lights are insane? Whadayou, nuts? That’s how you define insane?
Try these:
We have firefighters who smoke a pack of cigarettes a day and believe that they should be entitled to cancer presumption.
We have chief fire officers who spent their entire careers as medics on the ambulance side of the house and who now, because of loopholes, are commanding fires.
We have “square-rooting” firefighters cheating the system to illegally pad their overtime and retirements.
We have significantly overweight firefighters whose families go into shock when they suffer a heart attack—and then blame the department.
We have fire departments that send units to fires in neighboring towns, but then ignore command in order to fight the fire the way THEY want to.
We have fire departments purchasing “duplicate” apparatus so they have one of “their own,” despite the fact that there are five or six of the same apparatus available just a few miles away.
We have departments who still elect their officers without any required training or qualifications.
We have firefighters who refuse to accept the role of EMS within the fire service.
We have firefighters driving apparatus without seatbelts.
Is that enough INSANITY for you? Now, back to warning lights.
First I’ll give you some personal observations, and then next month we’ll look at the studies—and then you can go back to school and get your degree in psychology with a specialty in insanity.
Generally, I think it’s inappropriate to make blanket statements about pretty much anything, unless I am correct. Now, in this case, it may not be the issue of too many lights but rather how they are used. The job of warning lights is generally accepted in the following levels:
Getting attention and attempting to gain the right of way; and
As a warning when stationary so we (or others on the scene) don’t get struck.
I think that about covers it.
As for getting attention, to me it appears that we need to use lighting systems that make us as visible as possible to others, including motorists and pedestrians. I’m not sure if you can have “too many” lights to do that.
The issue of protection/warning when stopped is different than that of responding. When on the scene, we want to gain the attention of others and send them a message to “slow down,” avoid the area and, better yet, don’t hit me or my apparatus—thanks. Lighting is supposed to convey a message—not create confusion.
With that in mind, I think stationary lighting needs to be significantly reduced to convey the warning message; that is, reduced as it is compared to the “get out of the way; we are responding to a fire” message. But what does reduced mean? To me, it means fewer lights turned on. For example, in my buggy (for those of you who are younger than 50, that’s my chief car), I have two levels of lighting. The first position of the switch has some red flashing in front, some red on the side and some red and yellow (amber) to the rear. That’s the “I am stopped; please don’t hit me—thanks” mode. The lights are bright, but there are only a few. They flash slowly and send a message of caution. However, when you slide the switch to the responding mode, it activates a lot of red and clear LED lights and headlight flashers—A LOT.
Next month, we’ll look at some science stuf from some experts in the fieldf, so relax and keep your bulb screwed in until I get to that. In the meantime, make sure that your apparatus lighting reflects the message you are trying to convey. Reflects the message. Get it? Lighting humor.
Apparatus Debate: Too Many Warning Lights?
Do we look unprofessional when we have so many warning lights on our apparatus?
Published Thursday, March 1, 2012 | From the March 2012 [3] Issue of FireRescue
Dear Nozzlehead: I’m writing to you because I feel that we have way too many warning lights on our apparatus. I appreciate the need for lighting, but haven’t some departments gone overboard with multiple light bars, side light bars, two to three sirens and a host of other lights (LED, strobe, oscillating, arrow and spinning)? I think that when we come down the road with so many lights, we don’t appear to be a professional department. The majority of our department wants to mount as many lights as possible in as many locations as possible, which, to me, is insane. What are your thoughts? Are there any scientific studies on this topic? Are there any laws against having so many lights? What do the standards say?
—Shining in the South
Dear Sunshine,
Let me be very clear from the beginning: I LIKE LOTS OF LIGHTS AND NOISE WHEN RESPONDING. There, I said it. I came out of the dark closet. Are you happy now? Of course you aren’t; you don’t agree with me. But I happen to be of the opinion that it makes the most sense to do whatever it takes to make people see us and hear us to avoid a crash and allow us to get to the scene as quickly as possible. Why? Because I said so—that’s why. Scientific studies? Why in the hell would we use science to determine what we already know?
You think too many warning lights are insane? Whadayou, nuts? That’s how you define insane?
Try these:
We have firefighters who smoke a pack of cigarettes a day and believe that they should be entitled to cancer presumption.
We have chief fire officers who spent their entire careers as medics on the ambulance side of the house and who now, because of loopholes, are commanding fires.
We have “square-rooting” firefighters cheating the system to illegally pad their overtime and retirements.
We have significantly overweight firefighters whose families go into shock when they suffer a heart attack—and then blame the department.
We have fire departments that send units to fires in neighboring towns, but then ignore command in order to fight the fire the way THEY want to.
We have fire departments purchasing “duplicate” apparatus so they have one of “their own,” despite the fact that there are five or six of the same apparatus available just a few miles away.
We have departments who still elect their officers without any required training or qualifications.
We have firefighters who refuse to accept the role of EMS within the fire service.
We have firefighters driving apparatus without seatbelts.
Is that enough INSANITY for you? Now, back to warning lights.
First I’ll give you some personal observations, and then next month we’ll look at the studies—and then you can go back to school and get your degree in psychology with a specialty in insanity.
Generally, I think it’s inappropriate to make blanket statements about pretty much anything, unless I am correct. Now, in this case, it may not be the issue of too many lights but rather how they are used. The job of warning lights is generally accepted in the following levels:
Getting attention and attempting to gain the right of way; and
As a warning when stationary so we (or others on the scene) don’t get struck.
I think that about covers it.
As for getting attention, to me it appears that we need to use lighting systems that make us as visible as possible to others, including motorists and pedestrians. I’m not sure if you can have “too many” lights to do that.
The issue of protection/warning when stopped is different than that of responding. When on the scene, we want to gain the attention of others and send them a message to “slow down,” avoid the area and, better yet, don’t hit me or my apparatus—thanks. Lighting is supposed to convey a message—not create confusion.
With that in mind, I think stationary lighting needs to be significantly reduced to convey the warning message; that is, reduced as it is compared to the “get out of the way; we are responding to a fire” message. But what does reduced mean? To me, it means fewer lights turned on. For example, in my buggy (for those of you who are younger than 50, that’s my chief car), I have two levels of lighting. The first position of the switch has some red flashing in front, some red on the side and some red and yellow (amber) to the rear. That’s the “I am stopped; please don’t hit me—thanks” mode. The lights are bright, but there are only a few. They flash slowly and send a message of caution. However, when you slide the switch to the responding mode, it activates a lot of red and clear LED lights and headlight flashers—A LOT.
Next month, we’ll look at some science stuf from some experts in the fieldf, so relax and keep your bulb screwed in until I get to that. In the meantime, make sure that your apparatus lighting reflects the message you are trying to convey. Reflects the message. Get it? Lighting humor.
